9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1423 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT - The learned RP has not filed any counter countering the contentions raised in the Application. It is observed that the amount claimed by the Applicant actually arises from a settlement before the Lok Adalat between the Applicant and Corporate Debtor. It is also seen that the Applicant has appropriately filed an Execution Petition bearing No. 2188 of 2012 before the Lok Adalat for recovering the aforementioned amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited, has held that the Adjudicating Authority under IBC cannot be used as a recovery forum. Since the Applicant has already approached the appropriate forum to enforce his right, he cannot be allowed to rely on I B Code to recover the aforementioned amount and is hence liable to be dismissed. It is stated that Applicant paid an advance of ₹ 20,00,000/- on 29.03.2006 under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.03.2009 and that the Corporate Debtor gave a cheque for an amount of ₹ 70,00,000/- dated 17.07.2013 towards payment of damages for delay of seven years which was dishonoured. Original Suit is said to be pending before the Hon'ble Civil Court at Bengaluru and criminal cases have also been filed against the Corporate Debtor and its Director - The claims made by the Applicant have not been substantiated and seem to contradict the facts. In the absence of a proper, registered document setting out the basis of claim the Applicant cannot be allowed to use this forum for recovery of money as appropriate cases filed by the Applicant are already pending in Hon'ble Civil Court and Hon'ble Criminal Court. As such, this application deserves to be dismissed. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of the claim by the Resolution Professional (RP) under CIRP. 2. Rejection of claims by the RP due to insufficient documentation. 3. Legal presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. Pending adjudication in other courts and its impact on CIRP claims. 5. Use of IBC as a recovery forum. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Consideration of the claim by the Resolution Professional (RP) under CIRP: The Applicant in I.A. No. 402 of 2019 sought to direct the RP to consider his claim, which was based on 10,00,000 fully paid 11% redeemable optionally convertible cumulative shares. The RP rejected the claim stating that the Applicant was not a preference shareholder as per the latest audited financials. The Tribunal directed the RP to take necessary action on the claim within seven days, noting that the RP had not filed any objection or produced the latest audited Balance Sheet to substantiate his rejection. 2. Rejection of claims by the RP due to insufficient documentation: In I.A. No. 430 of 2019, the Applicant's claim was rejected because he did not submit the requisite documents sought by the RP. The claim arose from a loan of ?26,00,000/- provided to the Corporate Debtor, supported by dishonored cheques and a settlement before the Lok Adalat. The Tribunal observed that the Applicant had already approached the appropriate forum (Lok Adalat) to enforce his right and dismissed the application, emphasizing that IBC cannot be used as a recovery forum. 3. Legal presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Both Applicants in I.A. No. 402 and I.A. No. 430 of 2019 argued that the dishonored cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor constituted a presumption of legal liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Tribunal acknowledged these statutory presumptions but emphasized that the claims must be substantiated with proper documentation and cannot solely rely on these presumptions. 4. Pending adjudication in other courts and its impact on CIRP claims: In I.A. No. 431 of 2019, the Applicant's claim was based on an advance payment of ?20,00,000/- under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and a dishonored cheque for ?70,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the MoU did not pass any right, title, or interest and that the Applicant's claims were already pending in civil and criminal courts. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the Applicant could not use the CIRP process to recover money while other legal proceedings were ongoing. 5. Use of IBC as a recovery forum: The Tribunal reiterated in its judgments for I.A. No. 430 and I.A. No. 431 of 2019 that the IBC process should not be used as a recovery forum. It emphasized that Applicants must approach the appropriate legal forums for recovery of their claims and cannot rely on the CIRP process for such purposes. Conclusion: - I.A. No. 402 of 2019 was allowed with directions for the RP to take necessary action on the claim within seven days. - I.A. No. 430 of 2019 and I.A. No. 431 of 2019 were dismissed, with the Tribunal emphasizing that the IBC process cannot be used as a recovery forum and that claims must be substantiated with proper documentation and pursued in appropriate legal forums.
|
